What “parts” are needed to build the effective digital historian?

Thanks to Craig’s comments on my digital history-related post from the other day, I’m starting to mull over a great deal regarding the needs of digital historians. But first, ya gotta love the title of this post… after all, it is Halloween week! Get it, my digital historian/Frankenstein’s monster metaphor?! Ahh, come on… anyway…

We’re still on the edge of this “new frontier” of digital history, so, to a point, I can see that in some practitioners of history on the Web, there might be no great need to “get one’s hands dirty learning html.” However, I take that only to a point. If someone wants to use the Web as an archival database, they can either hire someone to upload their info or learn to do it. For this, “doing is learning” works just fine.

That said, for those who want to communicate historical concepts and the like and make their communications on the Web effective pieces, that particular level of digital historian needs to step it up considerably. After all, aren’t those who accomplish a certain level of education in history (let’s say, for example, an M.A. in history) guided to write a certain way to match expectations in scholarly articles and books? (I have to interject here, that I think there is a flaw in this system, but that’s another subject that I’ll touch on briefly in the next paragraph). So, if these graduate level academians are taught to write/present for the article or the book, why shouldn’t the same historians who want to go into digital history be taught to present for the Web… and maybe it shouldn’t necessarily be at the hands of other historians, but actually those who know the theories behind Web development and those who understand HCI, etc.? (again, my question, why can’t history degrees come with the “S” on the end, such as B.S. and M.S.?)

Now, back to the writing for the book thing (sorry for jumping around, but call it a weakness since my hypertext theory course… I’ll never be the same again)… I think this is where, to some degree, the academy has missed the boat. I think that the academy has focused too much on writing from the academy to the academy and is missing out on effective communication to/with the largest possible audience (oh, gosh, and with that… here comes my user-centered design philosphy stuff again). Scholarly books and articles are read by more than those in the academy, sure, but I think an opportunity is missed and we end up in what some perceive as some rather intimidating or even elitist verbage used in scholarly works. To that, I wonder if there Isn’t there a happy medium somewhere.

But, I stray from the Web stuff (and I’ll probably do it again… you know, the hypertextual thought stuff again).

I think, to be an effective communicator on the Web, the historian (in one housing of the brain) needs to become familiar with presentation skills (perhaps in another brain housing) that go beyond verbage. If someone wants to data-dump archive on the Web, that’s one story (and there is nothing wrong with archiving because it is an integral part of digital history). Yet, for those who want to be effective communicators of their analysis (and I’m not talking academic historian lingo uploaded from the medium of the book to the medium of the Web), then they need to step it up considerably. Why shouldn’t upper tiered digital historians (my terminology) become familiar with not only html but with the science and many theories behind effective Web presentation?

Now, there might be the metaphor of the atom here, so hold on… but if a digital historian is well-prepared, not only with the historical knowledge, but also with the knowledge of effective presentation on the Web, is he/she not a more effective communicator of his/her concepts and ideas? Do historians not desire that what they write can make a positive impact on another person’s understanding of history? Now, I give the metaphor of atom because I do think that, if a digital historian does master the art of instructional design for the Web, there is that possibility that someone is going to abuse it (e.g., not to convey the point that there are multiple ways to look at the proverbial cube, but to influence others that there is one way and it is the only way and that it is the absolute right way).

So, does that make sense? If he/she wants to be a strong communicator of concepts, why shouldn’t the this type of digital historian come into the environment of the Web loaded with all of the necessary tools including the historical knowledge… and the ability to understand user-centric design and usability testing? Don’t “writing historians” want to be effective historians? Why shouldn’t those historians who want to write concepts for the Web want to use the medium effectively to reach the widest possible audience? Are we hear to “preach to the choir” or do we want a larger audience? Do we want our theories to be more widely understood (and possibly help clear that “dilution and distortion” that Ed Ayers mentioned)?

Note: Though, in casual conversation, I use it in almost”slang-like” reference to my Southern Unionists Chronicles site, I removed the phrase “data-dump” because it can be taken negatively. Archive sites on the Web are an important part of digital history and are an excellent tool for historians at all levels. I use many archive sites and feel almost an inherent need to develop such sites as a part of my practice of digital history.

I agree – stepping up needs to be done. I don’t consider myself a historian, digital or otherwise, but I’m doing my level best to digitize, so to speak, Bull Run. Right now, maybe that only means a “data dump”, as you say. Bull Runnings is certainly far from sophisticated, and far from realizing more than a thimble full of the potential of digital history, and well aware of its status as a red headed step-child. But getting data up is half the battle, if only half. Presentation can and shoul be developed over time. We all need to think in terms outside the book shaped box, and I think many of those real historians dipping their toes into the web are doing so with an eye still tied to print. Remember what the door mouse said.

Harry, Thanks for the comment. Actually, this post was put up on the Web before I had the chance to tweak it. I accidentally pushed the wrong button and published it to the Web, but didn’t realize it until now. But that’s ok. I’ll go with what I have.

I love archive sites, as they give me materials with which I can work (e.g., my recent post about Stephen Douglas’ visit to Harrisonburg in 1860). I hope I didn’t come across as looking down on the archival sites. They are an essential part of digital history and, in many cases, our first efforts at entering the Web. Frankly, with my Southern Unionists Chronicles site, I’m doing the same thing. I “data-dump” there to give me stuff to talk about here. Like you say, getting the data up is half the battle, if only half.

I think you are on target Robert. You are right, that just getting the information on the web is half the battle.

I found some overlap with my “trade” when a historian noted in his blog last week something to the effect that, “writing for the web required short snippets under 300 words.” That’s something the knowledge and info management gurus have been beating us up with for ten years now.

Why is that valid for the web and not for a book? Simple. On the web, I have the ability to track every single visit, a degree of the behavior of the visit (within the limits of privacy), and the popularity of distinct portions of the body of information. With a book, all I can tally is the number of books sold. Who knows if the book is on the shelf gathering dust; held at ready reference beside the computer desk; or even stacked (as Harry’s OR are) in the attic :-).

I would submit that the vast majority of the books on my shelf, your shelf, and the average enthusiast or historian’s shelf are not read cover to cover. Instead, while we might buy a book under the best of intentions, we end up cherry picking the read. Often using the table of contents or index to focus the retrieval of information pertinent to the topic of our fancy at that moment (the itch of the week).

As such, this “300 word” format on the web isn’t so much a “new thing,” but rather demonstrating the responsiveness of the digital environment, making the medium match better to user behavior.

So how do you stack a “K” worth of 300 word articles on a battle inside a digital resource, so the story makes sense? Well if I may be a bit patronizing, let me reference Harry’s blog! The Order of Battle listing is a good technique – displaying links to official reports and biographies. Personally I’d twist it one step further, and offer tags to relate information. But it’s not my body of knowledge to catalog, and I’m speaking from the perspective of one looking into the window of the candy store!

What we have here is the synthesis of data into information. Information forms the basis of knowledge. Knowledge creates awareness. Awareness shapes perception. Then somewhere down the line someone slaps a cover on it and calls it a book.

You bring up some interesting points, the first of which surrounds the “300 words” thing. My question to this person would be, “if it works for you, does it work for everybody, no matter the focus?” Take for example, blogging. What draws the most feedback? Is it short posts or long posts. Frankly, I’m not positive. Maybe we need to conduct a survey of Civil War blogs. Unless someone has taken specific things to task in different environments/situations, I’m not buying the theory that they promote as good for everyone. I’ve got a lot of ideas about what might work and what does work, but that might (maybe/hopefully) end up in an article in a publication in the coming year. (Incidentally, I found this post and need to read it a little more carefully, but there seems to be some active discussion about the length of blog posts).

As far as books go, somehow, I have a hard time letting go of my hardcopy books. Yet, I’d really love to see a lot of them effectively remediated on the Web; not just put there, but with interactive features and hyperlinks to help in understanding certain things. I actually did this in a course project, using a couple of chapters from a book, and the results were cool! Incidentally, I too am a notorious “cherry-picking” reader. I reference books more than I read them. Short span of attention, I suppose. or, maybe, the Web has changed the way that I like to read (it seems I prefer “chunking”).

“What we have here is the synthesis of data into information. Information forms the basis of knowledge. Knowledge creates awareness. Awareness shapes perception. Then somewhere down the line someone slaps a cover on it and calls it a book.”

I couldn’t have said it better. However, therein lies the problem with the Web. If we do analysis on the Web, at what risk do we put ourselves? Not only that, but it counts for squat when it comes to tenure. I think this is part of the reason why we aren’t seeing much beyond archival sites on the Web. It’s great to see that some academic historians have practices in the blogospheres, but I wonder when the next step will come.

I don’t want to hijak Robert’s comment thread, but can you expand on your suggestion RE: tags? You can do it here or over at my place if you want. I’m always looking for ways to make the site more user friendly and useful, and to tell you the truth I’ve never understood tags – I use categories for the most part. Some sits I’ve seen use so many tags you may as well just use the search feature.

I’m glad you noticed that the OOBs are really maps to all the resources. I periodically explain that, and also have some instructions on the general Orders of Battle page.

RE books: spot on. I’ve read less than 20% of my library of around 1750 ACW books. Considering I only read – cover to cover – around 20-25 per year, and add probably two to three times that number per year, well, you get the picture. My ORs have not yet made it to the attic – I’m selling them bit by bit, and have about 10 that I keep on my shelf. Hard copy is still important…lots of typos in the digital world.

Hi Harry! Don’t feel like you are hijacking, but look at it as if you are offering hypertextual paths of opportunity 🙂 What you are asking isn’t going far from the discussion.

I for one am tag crazy. I go through my posts and create so many tags they turn into a readily-available index system for the reader. I figure, if I use tags, categories, a tag cloud AND have the search feature operating, then I am accomodating a range of user preference. Whatever that preference may be, I try to create a user-friendly reference environment.

Regarding the ORs, I am still scratching my head, wondering why I bought so many like I did a few years ago. I had the CD, but I never really used it… then I started to use it and have since to return to the OR books that just gather dust on my shelf.

I have found that, for archival purposes, the digital version is a good starting point only – vital for time savings. However, after I do my cutting and pasting, I compare the result to the hard copy. There are almost always errors from the scanning process on the CD/DVD. Now, there are also typos in the print version, but I can’t run to the archives for each OR.

For the JCCW testimony, I used the google books version and copied to Word, then checked the document back against the scanned image in google books (after that I have to copy to notepad to get rid of all the Word junk). I just recently noticed I can save a step as google books also has a text version. But I’ll still check that to the image.

Harry, Yes, I agree, there are all sorts of problems when it comes to digitzing works (especially transcribing works), and it usually hurts the most when spelling errors are made and the search feature becomes compromised.

No doubt, the process of archiving/digitizing to the Web is labor intensive.

Incidentally, I often use Google Books in hyperlinking to source pages (when available). Google Books is an interesting topic of discussion and I think something recently happened with it in a legal case.

I use google books (and other online books) in footnotes on some articles, but usually only when the full work is available. The advantage is you can take your reader right to the very page – instant gratification for endnote dweebs like me and, no doubt, you. Of course, these linked footnotes make it a lot harder for authors who cite works that don’t really support their argument.

One of the projects I’m toying with involves returning to the ORs and inserting hyperlinks to other ORs and documents on the site for individuals, units, events, other reports, etc… when they appear in the text – or even from passages in lower level regimental report sthat are referred to in brigade, division and army reports. While it could serve to illustrate the report writing (and history making) process, it would be quite involved and might be hopelessly confusing if I don’t “do it right”, so maybe I’ll experiment with one report. I think it demonstrates some of the potential of the web, and would create an experience not to be duplicated with traditional print. Picture the researcher like you or me who has sat a library tables covered with 10 open books trying to keep things straight, and contrast that to a grad student sitting in Panera Bread with his laptop and a nice panini, making time with a hot pharmaceutical sales rep at the next table while at the same time (sureptitiously, of course) figuring out what company of the 145th Rhode Island was on the left of the line at the battle of Geek’s Farm (and of course how that relates to race and gender in 19th New England). Sweet!

Harry, That is exactly what I did with a book about Cole’s Cavalry (1st Potomac Home Brigade, Maryland Volunteers, US… I had some relatives in the unit, and therefore, the desire to work with the book). Considering the chapters were so short, it worked wonderfully as a series of nodes. I took to heart different philosophies of people like Marie-Laure Ryan, and created useful hyperlinks while remediating the book for the Web. However, I did get hung up on one thing, I couldn’t bring myself to changing the author’s voice. So, when I made hyperlinks it was for the convenience of the reader, while supplementing existing materials in the text. I used three different content management systems to get the effects I wanted, including JavaScript features that made things really cool! I need to finish remediating the book so I can put it online. However, the creation of JavaScipt features through the use of Adobe RoboHelp created a glitch in the appearance on the browser screen, so I need to tweak that a bit.

I’m also wanting to make the Southern Unionists Chronicles site more dynamic, but I need to make the transition from WordPress.com to WordPress.org to get more control over the coding. Either that, or I need to jump to something like MoveableType. As a side project to my blog, I love using the blog format for something other than blogging, but there are certain restrictions that are not pleasant for someone who wants to control the coding.

OK, as a sidenote, enough on the Panera’s talk, I’m getting hungry and that place is among my favorites (not to mention, it is lunchtime)!

Harry, just to expand on the tag vs. category discussion. Tags can be implemented like a “soft” category of sorts. The real value is to enable some non-parental relations of information. Going back to the OOB example, you’ve got a listing of the artillery OOB. A “tag” for “12-pounder Napoleon” might enable a reader to quickly locate units that were armed with that weapon. Or for 1st Manassas, maybe the 6pdr is more appropriate.

Personally, I don’t tag a lot on my blog, as I don’t have a very directed topic. On the other hand, I like having hard categories to aid navigation. For a topic such as your bog, the question of tags and categories really should be one of those ontology and taxonomy discussions. There are plenty of tools out there to aid in the process, but it tends to boil down to some basic assumptions. If you want readers to be able to match up similar pieces of information, then an approach should consider many different angles of data access.

Consider that piece of information is sitting in a three dimensional space. Readers may navigate to it from any direction. From that point in space, where can they, and where should then, AND were will you allow them to navigate?

I’m usually at the pointy end of all this. What I look for are “dead ends” to navigation.

What a great discussion, both in the post and the comments. I see from the comment above that you’ll continue the thread, Robert, so I’ll (mostly) wait for that.

In the meantime how about some worthless opinions on a couple of points that jump out, fwtw.

First, I’m not sure we should expect many academically trained historians to be fluent in web technology, or know how to write for online media. Real ‘digital historians’ are apparently very rare. Academics are still rewarded for publishing (print, that is), right? What’s their ROI in blogging or otherwise putting their work online?

I think those few true digital historians I know from their online work do “get it” and can write well for the web. There are many excellent historians blogging and otherwise publishing on the Internets – I’ll bet you could find a hundred or two without much trouble (see HNN). As far as the rest wanting to get their message out? I’m guessing most really don’t (or else they’d be out here).

On tagging: You can use it for setting up navigation paths, if that works for your application – particularly on a blogging platform. I can see that it would be a good way to self-select an index of your work to highlight the things you find important. Know, however, that something like 75%* of your visitors will not come to your site or blog through the main page and follow your carefully crafted links (tags, categories, pages). They hit you way down in the content somewhere from a Google search, gobble the paragraph they were looking for, and skip back off into the ether. That’s not a bad thing, by the way, just suggests to me that Google helps people find my information better than I could do with tags.

No worthless opinions here. What you say about academic historians and digital historians is, I think, on the mark.

I’ve also grown cold on the tag clouds. I’m going to drop it soon as soon as I know this blog, as part of my masters comps package, has been evaluated. (So, “smile!” What you are posting here is probably being reviewed by my tech com professors).